Objective of unit of work: For students to understand that
Holocaust Denial and Inversion are problematic subjects and the only way to
evaluate an argument is to be aware that at least one counter-argument must be
taken into consideration. History, therefore, is not a simple narrative that
exists without contestation.
(I)
RATIONALE:
- The
topic of Holocaust Denial
and Inversion
is perhaps best taught by explicitly making use of the most intellectual
aspect of history teaching: historiography. We might define historiography
as follows: “The presentation of a contested historical narrative based on
the critical examination, evaluation, and selection of material from
secondary sources and subject to scholarly criteria.” Some educators might
be critical of framing Holocaust studies in what has been called a “forensic”
manner, with the main emphasis on disputation or prosecution rather than
constructivist-like empathy, but the prevalence of Holocaust Denial and
Inversion in modern times demands such an approach.
- For
instance, David Irving, a Holocaust Denier, has been jailed in Austria for
his work, and yet it was the David Irving vs. Penguin Books &
Deborah Lipstadt
ruling on 11 April 2000 that addressed his lack of academic rigour in
order to prove beyond doubt he is an apologist for Hitler. To quote from
one passage in the ruling: “[Irving] has resorted to the distortion of
evidence; the manipulation and skewing of documents; the misrepresentation
of data and the application of double standards to the evidence, in order
to serve his own purpose exonerating Hitler and portraying him as
sympathetic towards the Jews.” It was, then, proper debate and formal
argumentation that that brought Irving undone.
- On
the basis of this, I have devised a unit of work that necessarily involves
argument and counterargument. I have chose to make the student’s
assessable response in the form of a class presentation, since this will
serve to deepen or extend each student’s appreciation of how different
perspectives exist on a single event in history. At the same time, the
three-part presentation demands not only an acknowledgement of
contestation, but also a reasoned judgement at the conclusion, or at least
a synthesis of sorts. After all, it is all well and good that (say) a
surgeon weighs up the pros and cons of proceeding with surgery but in the
end he does have to come to a conclusion!
- I
have included as topic for our scrutiny Holocaust Inversion – a term used
by Robert Wistrich in From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews,
and Israel (2012).
Wistrich uses the expression to explain the concerted effort of some
anti-Zionists to portray modern-day Israel as Nazis, and Palestinians as
Hitler’s Jews. If this allegory prevails, then there is the likelihood
that any study of the Holocaust, and even the scrutiny of Holocaust
Deniers, will only have the paradoxical effect of undermining the
legitimacy of the decisions made by Jewish people over the course of the
modern era, including the foundation of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948.
- Holocaust
Inversion, in other words, has the capacity to turn the victim of
Holocaust injustice into the perpetrator of a Holocaust-like injustice. As
with the Lipstadt-Irving example, the Inversion allegory needs to be
addressed or challenged in a logical and step-by-step way. For this
reason, as the teacher I provide the students a presentation on the
Holocaust Inverter Lenni Brenner, author of Zionism in the Age of
Dictators
(1983). This presentation will be included in this outline of my Educational
Unit.
- Finally,
to assist students with contextualizing their presentation, a study of the
genesis of Zionism, the background of Mandatory Palestine, The racialist
ideology of National Socialism, Jews and the First Reich (1933-39), the
Holocaust (1941-45), the War of Independence (1947-49), the Six Day War
(1967), the Yom Kippur War (1973), the origins of Yasser Arafat’s PLO, the
Oslo Peace Process (1993-2000), and the Second Intifada (2000-05) will
also be addressed.
Task: Students must find a contested issue
in the subject of Holocaust Denial and Inversion. They must research the topic
and divide their response up into three parts: an overview, argument and
counter-argument. They will be making a six-minute presentation to the class.
Visuals are permissible but will be in addition to the actual speech. They must
write out their speech in full, and then break it down into headings that go on
debating cards. A copy of the speech in normal prose must be provided to the
teacher. This will acknowledge any useful resources or sources that have been
utilized for the speech.
(II) CLASS TEXT: Middle East
Conflict,
(Longman, Sydney, 2003) by Michael Pyne
·
Zionism:
the idea
·
Mandatory
Palestine
·
The
Holocaust: world support for Israel
·
Israel:
the birth of a nation
·
The Suez
conflict
·
The Six
Day War (1967)
·
The Yom
Kippur War (1973)
·
Camp
David: Egypt takes a break (1987)
·
The
First Intifada (1987-93)
·
The Oslo
Peace Process (1983-2000)
·
The
future: can the peace work? [The text finishes before the Second Intifada,
2000-05)]
(III) TEACHER’S NOTES
Hitler’s Treatment of Jews, 1933-39
·
Background
(Nazi Rise to Power / Ideology)
o
Early
Nazis extremely ‘antisemitic’ (coined 1880s) – partly due to 19th C
German nationalist movement
o
‘Volkish’
aspects of Germans emphasised – implied race + religion -> unable to become
‘normalised’ due to race whereas previously could convert
o
Zionism
originated from the Dreyfus Affair (France at the turn of the century, new
levels of Judeophobia)
o
German
Jews were a tiny minority of the population and fought in the First World War –
German ultra-nationalists blamed Jews for events at Versailles (1918 November
Criminals, Social Democrats)
o
1918-19
Spartacist Movement led by Polish Jew Rosa Luxemburg – ‘cosmopolitan’ influence
destroying German tradition, possible effects similar to Bolshevik rise to
power in Russia (1917)
o
Common
enemy to bind people together in Hitler’s populist ideology which targeted many
different groups
o
‘Mein
Kampf’ –> ‘Final Solution’ -> extermination or relocation?
(Intentionalist vs. Structuralist)
o
Works
of eugenist Hans F.K. Gunther influenced Nazi Party -> Aryan superiority /
The Purity of Race
o
Nazi
ideology essentially racist
·
Gradual
Denaturalisation (Early Days of Hitler)
o
The
original Concentration Camps did not specifically target the Jewish population.
o
Jews
could not be a part of the “Volksgemeinschaft” – the people’s community because
this was a racist ideology
o
Locally
– prevented from complying with ritual purity requirements
o
Tax
consultant licenses revoked
o
1933
§
Jewish
immigrants denaturalised
§
Excluded
from civil service and public office
§
Excluded
from radio shows
§
Excluded
from ownership of farms
§
Excluded
from Army
§
April
– Placements in schools and universities limited (1.5% quota for public
education)
§
April
– Forbidden from medical school, practicing on non-Jews
§
April
– Forbidden from certain legal practices
o
1934
§
Excluded
from stock market, banking
§
Excluded
from acting
·
Segregation
(1935-39)
o
1935
Nuremberg Laws – immediate consequences
§
Formalised
matters, placated SA and old-time Nazis who had not profited as much from the
Nazi ‘Revolution’
§
Defined
‘Jew’
§
Excluded
from Army
§
Excluded
from sitting medical exams
§
Lost
German citizenship
§
Forbid
marriage, relationships with non-Aryans
§
Forbid
females being hired in jobs such as cleaning etc.
o
1935
Reich Propaganda Ministry prohibits Jewish soldiers from being recognised as
casualties of the First World War
o
1936
excluded from the vote
o
1937-38
compulsory registration of businesses
o
1937-38
completely forbidden from medical/legal practice
o
1937-38
‘Aryanisation’ of businesses
o
1938
banned from certain public spaces – sidewalks, restaurants etc.
o
1938
Evian Conference
§
Aim
– to make Germany Judenfrei
§
300,000
of 500,000 German Jews left before Holocaust
§
Hitler
allowed Jews to leave at $250pp / $1000 per family but Western countries
unwilling to take Jews
§
Possibly
did not plan on exterminating Jews until this point
·
Co-ordinated
Violence Begins (1938-)
o
1938
many Polish Jews expelled
o
1938
Kristallnacht (November 9-10) – nationwide pogrom
§
Instigated
by Nazi Party officials / SA members / Hitler Youth
§
Ostensibly
public response to assassination of Ernst von Rath by Polish Jew Herschel
Grynszpan on Nov 7 (because of expulsion)
§
‘Insofar
as [demonstrations] erupt spontaneously, they are not to be hampered’ ->
Goebbels’ words taken as implicit permission to instigate pogrom
§
Instructions
given not to harm non-Jewish life / property or foreigners (including Jews)
§
Aim
to arrest Jews, esp. healthy men (total no. 30,000) -> transferred to
concentration camps
§
267
synagogues destroyed (archives removed first)
§
7,500
shop windows smashed
§
Fined
1 billion Reichsmark: based on Goebbels’ speech blaming Jews for pogrom – ‘I would
not like to be a Jew in Germany’
§
Excuse
for more legislation
§
Passports
stamped with ‘J’
§
Driver’s
licences confiscated
§
Expelled
from schools
§
Banned
from recreational venues eg theatres
o
1939
had to add ‘Israel’ and ‘Sara’ to given names
o
1939
Identity cards
o
1939
Invasion of Poland –>Germans established a ghetto at Treblinka, Poland
(October 1939)
o
Anihilationist
antisemitism appears on the horizon
(IV) RELATED VISUAL MEDIA
- The Longest Hatred documentary
- Schindler’s List
- Exodus
- World
at War
documentary on Adolf Hitler
- Documentary
on the War of Independence
- Documentary
on the Six Day War
(V) CLASS PRESENTATION ON HOLOCAUST
DENIAL & INVERSION
- Thus,
the student’s presentation will be threefold: (a) an overview (b) the side
of the argument that will eventually be rejected (c) the side of the
argument that in the ends makes the most logical sense. The time allowed
will be 6 minutes, although any visual supplements will be over and beyond
the 6 minutes.
- The
presentation will not
be a Power Point one with everybody reading off the screen. Instead, the
student will use notes/cards as in a debate: a quarter of the marks will
be allotted for the manner of presentation, which includes fluency,
confidence in the material assembled, plus capacity to use eye-contact
with the class.
- To
begin the journey towards finding a topic, the class spends a lesson on
the Internet looking at possible topics. The Nizkor Project website is a good starting point
for two reasons. Firstly, although Nizkor is in the business of
challenging Holocaust Denial, and therefore might be considered partisan,
it does at least provide a comprehensive list of contested topics for both
sides of the argument. For instance, the site – for some students – could
be the first time they ever discover that some Deniers even dispute the
authenticity of Anna Frank’s famous diary.
- In
addition, the Nizkor site provides Dr Michael C. Labossie’s list of
logical fallacies. Here is the introduction to this:
In order to understand what a
fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument
consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement
(a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the
claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is
either true or false).
There are two main types of
arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such
that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the
conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide
(or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support)
for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of
support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive
argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are
true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and
actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is
invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive
argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is
such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an
error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being
wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an
"argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not
provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive
argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and
still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a
deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be
inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the
conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would
not be more likely to be true.
(VI) SOME OF THE TOPICS CHOSEN
PREVIOUSLY:
- The Authenticity of Anna Frank’s Diary
- Hitler’s Responsibility For the Holocaust
- Auschwitz Claims and Counter Claims
- Disputation of Holocaust Deaths
- The Contested Role of Zyklon B
- The Integrity of the Holocaust-denying Adelaide
Institute
- The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
- The Nuremburg Trials
- The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
- The Lipstadt/Irving Trial
- The Historiography of the Arab Palestinian Exodus
(1947-8)
- The Islamic Republic of Iran and Holocaust Denial
- Holocaust Inversion and Lenni Brenner
Assessment: This Unit of Work will be marked out
of 40. Ten marks will be allocated for the speech set out in extended prose.
Another ten marks will be for the manner of the presentation: the proper use of
debating cars, eye contact, variability of voice, and confidence in handling
the material, including responding to questions at the conclusion of the
speech. Ten marks will reflect the strength of the research that has been
undertaken. Finally, ten marks will be given for the quality of the argument.
(VII) AN
EXEMPLAR
HOLOCAUST
INVERSION & LENNI BRENNER: PURPORTED ZIONIST/NAZI COLLABORATION,
COLLABORATION, 1933-39
1)
THE
OVERVIEW
·
Lenni
Brenner, in his book Zionism in The Age of Dictators (1983) argues that the Zionist
movement during the time of the Third Reich collaborated with Hitler’s regime.
· He
contends that both the Nazis and the German Zionists shared a common goal, the
separation of the Aryan race and the separation of the Jewish race. He notes
that at a certain point the only two flags that were legal in Nazi Germany were
the Swastika and the Zionist symbol and that this supports his view that the
Nazis and the Zionists were on the same page. In short, Nazism and Zionism are
both racialist political philosophies.
· Lenni
Brenner’s viewpoint, which equates Zionism with Nazism, fits perfectly with the
Holocaust Inversion perspective.
· Brenner
is careful not to deny the Holocaust, and does not contest the verdict that
millions of Jews died in the Holocaust; rather, his point is that the Zionists
in Germany were no friends of non-Zionist Jews, ready to use the wholesale
slaughter of Jews as a justification for the creation of a Jewish state in
Mandatory Palestine.
·
An
opposing position would question the overall framework in which Brenner
evaluates Zionism. For instance, Brenner is a Marxist-Leninist and a
self-styled “independent Trotskyist”, and as Robert Wistrich in From
Ambivalence to Betrayal:
The Left, the Jews, and Israel
(2012) asserts, the Marxist and Marxist-Leninist traditions have a record of
disparaging Zionism, believing that the “Jewish Question” will be solved by an
international proletarian revolution rather than the founding of a Jewish
state. The Yiddish-speaking Jew with an interest in the Torah and other
medieval pursuits disappears, as will all ethno-centrism, with the fall of
capitalism. As John Lennon sings: “Imagine there’s no countries/I wonder if you
can/No need for greed or hunger/A brotherhood of man.”
·
The
other aspect of Brenner’s work that needs to be pursued scrutinised is the
possible distortion of evidence in order to support his premise.
·
A final
subject that needs to be investigated is the genesis of the Zionism=Nazism
equation in the Soviet Union during Late Communism.
2) THE CASE FOR ZIONIST-NAZI COLLABORATION:
·
Most
importantly, perhaps, Brenner proffers a memorandum sent by the Zionist
Federation of Germany to the Nazis on 21 June 1933, which is after Hitler
assumed dictatorial powers through the Enabling Act (March 1933). The Zionist
Federation was seeking a modus vivendi for the future relationship between the Nazis and
themselves. Brenner notes the polite tone of the message and the intention of
the Zionist to work with the Nazis. Did this not suggest a commonality of
interests between the Nazis and the Zionists?
·
Not
really, counters Louis Harap in an article published by Jewish Currents in May 1984. As she says: “Did
Brenner think it preferable to address the Nazi bullies uncivilly.” Moreover,
the Nazis never responded to this attempt at opening up the channels of
communication.
·
Brenner
also quotes from a passage in the American Jewish Congress’ Congress
Bulletin, which
refers to the “kinship” between the Nazis and the Zionists in the process of
German Jews emigrating to Mandatory Palestine. Brenner interprets this mention
of “kinship” to mean that the American Jewish Congress was accusing the
Zionists of “collaboration” Harap checked the reference herself and discovered
that the article in Congress Bulletin did no such thing. Zionists were permitted to accomplish a degree of
Jewish emigration but nowhere in the article do the American Jews accuse the
German Zionists of “collaboration”, a term that has the meaning of alliance and collusion. When the editorial is read properly
it becomes clear that the American Jewish Congress was not critical of the
Zionists but sympathetic to the fact they were sometimes forced into a kinship with the Nazis in
order to save Jewish lives.
·
Harap
also addresses the supposed allegation by the Bulletin editorial that the Zionists worked
closely in the 1930s with a character called Georg Kareski, who really was a
Jewish collaborator. According to Harap, however, in the wider context of the
editorial it is clear that the Zionist Federation despised Kareski and only
worked with him because the Nazis forced this duplicitous character upon them.
In other words, they had no choice in the matter.
·
Elsewhere
in his book, Brenner refers to the extra Jews that the Zionist Federation
managed to extricate from Nazi Germany as “capitalists”, as if being a “capitalist”
was a mortal crime and business people did not deserve saving from
annihilation.
·
I should
like to acknowledge Paul Bogdanor’s excellent website that made it possible for
me to find this case.
THE
CASE AGAINST ZIONIST-NAZI COLLABORATION
· Not
only does Brenner manipulate
evidence and misrepresent documents to advance his Zionism=Nazism agenda, he
appears to be operating in a very narrow political perspective. Robert Wistrich’s
From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel (2012) is a very good study of the
history of Marxists, from Kautsky, Luxemburg, Trotsky through to modern-day
Trotskyists such as Lenni Brenner and so-called socialist libertarians like
Noam Chomsky. A common thread has always been a dislike of Zionism because it
does not fit their view that Jewish culture is a construct of capitalism, and
that after a socialist revolution the Jewish religion, culture and customs will
disappear. Zionism, and therefore Israel, should disappear and therefore not be
a part of the future. Nobody should be religious, and certainly no country,
such as a Jewish state, should be defined by any kind of religiousness.
· In addition, the Zionist-Nazism
equation has its origins in the Soviet Union and developed there on its own for
fifteen years before it was picked up in the West by the New left in the 1960s.
It might have as much to do with the politics of the New Left siding with
Yasser Arafat and the PLO from at least the time of the Six Day War than a
genuine fact-related theory.
· Lenni Brenner’s assertion that Zionism
shares a commonality with Nazism seems to be based on a fallacy: the premise
that Nazi racialism (see X below) has a direct connection with the notion of
‘the Jewish race’. The Jewish tradition, if modern Israel is anything to go by,
is not based on “race” in the way the Nazis defined this. For instance, many of
the Jews in Israel do come from central and eastern Europe originally
(Ashkenazi), but a large number come from North Africa and the Middle East
(Sephardi) and a percentage have arrived from Ethiopia. To be Jewish is not
racial per se, but
an ambiguous blend of religious, cultural and ethnic factors.
· It would seem Brenner has a view of how things really are and
is not backward any manipulating evidence to support his case.
(IX)
CONTRA MODERN-DAY ANTISEMITISM/ANTI-ZIONISM:
Topics
for homework/research/consideration & class discussion
· The
Blood Libel
· The
Protocols of Zion
· The
Zionism-Nazism Equation
· The
History of the West Bank: Disputed or Occupied Territories
· The
History of Gaza
· Islamist
Antisemitism
· United
Nations Resolution 181
· The
Life and Times of Yasser Arafat
· The
Deir Yassin Controversy
· Boycotts,
Divest, and Sanctions Campaign
· Israeli
Arabs
· The
Golan Heights
· Israel’s
Foreign Relations
· Holocaust
Survivors
· Israel:
the Start Up Nation
· Discrimination
against Israeli passport holders
· Antisemitism
in Venezuela
· Israeli
Television & Movies: the Homeland series.
(X)
WIDER READING
Tacitus made it up
Quadrant Online, January 1, 2012
Christopher B. Krebbs, author of A
Most Dangerous Book, describes Cornelius
Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD) as the “the leading Roman senator” of his time and “the
greatest historian in Latin literature”. Tacitus nevertheless played fast and
loose with the truth when it suited him. He wanted to score domestic political
points in his Germania by
contrasting the treachery of Roman affairs with the simplicity, integrity,
courage and freedom of the Germani: “The – often only implicit – antithesis
between Imperial Rome and life in Germania pervades the whole of Tacitus’
account.” Trouble was, all those fabulous sociological details about the
Germani were bogus. Tacitus simply made it all up, borrowing from standard
Roman stereotypes about foreigners.
One of the qualities attributed
to the spurious Germani was a special
kind of loyalty that “reached beyond the intimate circle of friends and family”.
Almost two thousand years later members of the SS had the motto “My honour is
called loyalty” – Meine Ehre heißt Treue – engraved on their belt buckles. Krebs’ faculty for establishing a
connection between these two instances of loyalty, one ancient and fictitious,
the other modern and only too real, shows Tacitus’ Germania to be a most dangerous book indeed. Even phoney
ideas, warns Krebs, can come to “resemble viruses”.
A manuscript of the Germania was rediscovered in 1455 and published in the German
language for the first time in 1473. For the next four centuries and more it
was presumed to be an accurate depiction of the Roman Empire’s “The Other”:
Whether readers turned to the Germania to condemn the
Germanic barbarians or to commend them as moral warriors, Tacitus’ text was
widely read as a historical source on authentic Germanic life until the
beginning of the twentieth century.
Not only did German-speaking
scholars and pedagogues fail to identify the Germania as a fable, they often chose to overlook Tacitus’
patronizing tone. The Roman historian might have praised the strength, loyalty
and purity of those who lived on the wrong side of the Rhine, but the Germani
– as depicted by Tacitus – were nonetheless
a simple and primitive race.
Thus, when the Archbishop of
Munich and Freising, Michael von Faulhaber, made a series of sermons towards
the end of 1933 chiding the Nazi regime he chose Tacitus’ Germania as his text. Von Faulhaber argued from the pulpit
that whilst the ancient Germanic tribes were apparently big on hospitality and
marital fidelity, this was but one part of the narrative. Such positives needed
to be weighed against a penchant for human sacrifice, blood revenge, ownership
of slaves, alcoholism, polytheism, and exposure of the weak and incurable. The
Nazis, who revered the Germania
monograph as if it were their Bible, were ipso facto barbarians. Michael von Faulhaber’s record against
the National Socialists was not faultless, but Advent 1933 found him in
unquestionably good form.
One of the more tedious aspects
of the Germanic cult between 1800 and 1945 was all those writers and
philosophers, up to and including Martin Heidegger, banging on about the
soullessness of modernity and the superficiality and artifice of Western civilization,
all of which contrasted with the Tacitean “rooted-ness” and “organic-ness” of
an authentic life. This monomaniacal worshipping of race, tribe, blood and soil
meant venerating one aspect of human nature under the banner of a false
wholesomeness. It gave birth, in the first instance, to modern anti-Semitism,
but then the myth of a past Germanic racial purity transmutated into an even
more sinister notion.
Krebs identifies the German race
researcher and eugenist Hans F K Günther (1891-1968) as a key character in what
turned out to be a journey into hell. Günther, who avoided being tried by the
Allies in 1945 because he was only an “intellectual”, had encouraged sociopaths
such as Himmler to believe that the German volk could recover their Tacitean greatness through “Re-nordification” (Aufnordung). In other words, the production or reproduction of
Nordic men and women (or Aryans) required the intervention of the German state
at the expense of “the degenerate”. The Third Reich would advance triumphantly into
the future by re-creating the ancient racial integrity attested to by Tacitus.
Moreover, noted the Nazis, the Germani had safeguarded racial purity and
nobility through their courage “to hang or drown in the marshes those who were
inferior or predisposed to perversion”. In addition to avoiding punishment at
the conclusion of the Second World War, Hans F K Günther remained a notorious
denier of the Holocaust until his dying day.
Krebs’ A Most Dangerous Book is the work of a genuine scholar but is also concise
and witty, and finishes with a wise rejoinder: “In the end the Roman historian
Tacitus did not write a most dangerous book; his readers made it so.”
